What if the NRA has responded to the Newtown Massacre in this manner?

What if the NRA pushed it's own "NRA Secure-Citizen Proclamation" from the very beginning of this crisis stemming from the Newtown Massacre? A ten point plan (feel free to add, subtract or change items as you wish) that was crafted to truly focus on reducing gun related crime?

Begin the Monday after the massacre which happened on a Friday. That is plenty of time to show respect for the fallen. It could have been taped in a studio and released without the carnival atmosphere of the "press release" where questions were not taken anyway.

Pound away with this proclamation! When anyone says "so you're not willing to address gun-related violence?" The immediate response would be that the facts show (and have them ready!) that attempts at gun control do not work so we created a "Secure-Citizen Proclamation" -- something that will actually help to reduce gun-related crime.

If the NRA would have chosen 10 (plus or minus) important and salable points (I didn't include national shall-issue CCW permits for instance) and continually pounded away at them since the massacre, I think the anti-gun people would be driven back on the heels by now AND something positive would be getting accomplished.

2.) Ensure states have the legal freedom and means to comply with all National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) reporting requirements. Then assure continued compliance with these requirements.

3.) Make the NICS more accessible and less difficult/expensive to use.

4.) Prosecute those who legitimately fail (felons, insane, etc.) the NICS during the process of attempting to purchase a firearm.

5.) Prosecute all violent, gun-related crimes to the full extent of existing laws.

6.) Prepare and make available the NRA School Shield Safety Program. (They did mention this.)

7.) Prepare and make widely available the NRA Firearms Safety Program for All Citizens. Offer gun safety training in all levels of education. Dramatically increase the application of the NRA's Eddie Eagle gun safety program into elementary schools.

8.) Repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990.

9.) Work with gov't and the media to establish firm guidelines so any future gun-related criminals are not lionized in the press.

10.) Have the FBI establish and maintain a database of stolen firearms. Allow it to be accessible by the public so potential buyers can ensure that they are not purchasing stolen property. Integrate with NICS?

It seems to me that if the NRA went on the offensive against gun crime with such a proclamation that it would not only take the wind out of the sails of the anti-gunners, it might actually lead to reducing gun-related crime!

If you enjoyed reading about "What if the NRA has responded to the Newtown Massacre in this manner?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

jwh336

February 5, 2013, 07:05 PM

The "mental health" thing is scary. Who determines ones mental state? A doctor paid by ObamaCare or is possibly anti-gun? As it is now, I could easily see a large portion of legal gun owners denied their rights simply for taking a certain medication.

"Mental health" is very broad and could easily be abused. I'm sure you are thinking about the people who are criminally insane, but where is the line drawn for liberals? Bipolar? OCD? ADD? Anxiety? Suriphobics? Also, what about doctor patient confidentiality?

What if I have an angry ex-girlfriend that wants to screw with me? All she needs to do is tell the police I threatened to kill her and they would come and take all of my firearms. So what if she lied, there's no reprocussions for her lying and my guns are tagged and gone until I retrieve them after a month (this happened to my brother).

After the next mass shooting, will they add a psychological evaluation to a new bill and add that to the UBC system? Give them an inch and they'll hang you by it.

I think it's fair to say the current laws are fine, insofar as they're enforced. A crazy person will kill you with whatever is handy, be it a gun or a plastic bag.

Skribs

February 5, 2013, 07:13 PM

What I'd actually like to see:

1) Repeal gun free zones. Make GFZ a private option if so desired, but allow that establishment to be sued if an attack occurs on their property without armed security present.
2) Open up the machine gun registry. They're already regulated under NFA, might as well let us have them.
3) Repeal 922r. It's basically a "buy American" law, which buying American should be a choice due to patriotism or (hopefully) because the product is better, and not because of the law.
4) Take silencers off NFA. They reduce noise pollution and provide hearing protection.
5) Promote (as the NRA has) education of gun safety and training of those who care for kids. This will protect our kids better than almost any other law I can think of.
6) Remove the idea of the "gun" being the problem. Someone shoots someone he is a "gunman". Someone stabs, beats, strangles, or bludgeons someone he is a "killer". Someone attacks someone with a knife it is "assault with a deadly weapon". Someone attacks someone with a gun it is a "deadly assault weapon." Focus on the violence, not the gun.

If they were willing to do some of these, I might consider there to be some room to compromise on background checks, because then it would be an actual compromise.

Kynoch

February 5, 2013, 07:15 PM

The "mental health" thing is scary. Who determines ones mental state? A doctor paid by ObamaCare or is possibly anti-gun? As it is now, I could easily see a large portion of legal gun owners denied their rights simply for taking a certain medication.

"Mental health" is very broad and could easily be abused. I'm sure you are thinking about the people who are criminally insane, but where is the line drawn for liberals? Bipolar? OCD? ADD? Anxiety? Suriphobics? Also, what about doctor patient confidentiality?

What if I have an angry ex-girlfriend that wants to screw with me? All she needs to do is tell the police I threatened to kill her and they would come and take all of my firearms. So what if she lied, there's no reprocussions for her lying and my guns are tagged and gone until I retrieve them after a month (this happened to my brother).

After the next mass shooting, will they add a psychological evaluation to a new bill and add that to the UBC system? Give them an inch and they'll hang you by it.

I think it's fair to say the current laws are fine, insofar as they're enforced. A crazy person will kill you with whatever is handy, be it a gun or a plastic bag.

The courts would. There are many now who are legally adjudicated to be insane and thus not able to legally own firearms but that information often doesn't make it into the NICS.

In any event I was asking about what would happen if the NRA had offered an actual plan, not necessarily the contents of the plan.

Kynoch

February 5, 2013, 07:19 PM

Sadly you both are missing my primary question.

What would have happened if the NRA had offered a plan from the very beginning? The discussion I was hoping for was not an analysis of what I offered but an analysis of what would have happened if the NRA has offered a plan from the very beginning?

As it is now when someone asks "so, the NRA doesn't support any measure to reduce gun-violence?" it's often met with a grimace and mumbling from WLP.

The NRA needed to get out in front on this one.

Kynoch

February 5, 2013, 07:25 PM

What I'd actually like to see:

1) Repeal gun free zones. Make GFZ a private option if so desired, but allow that establishment to be sued if an attack occurs on their property without armed security present.
2) Open up the machine gun registry. They're already regulated under NFA, might as well let us have them.
3) Repeal 922r. It's basically a "buy American" law, which buying American should be a choice due to patriotism or (hopefully) because the product is better, and not because of the law.
4) Take silencers off NFA. They reduce noise pollution and provide hearing protection.
5) Promote (as the NRA has) education of gun safety and training of those who care for kids. This will protect our kids better than almost any other law I can think of.
6) Remove the idea of the "gun" being the problem. Someone shoots someone he is a "gunman". Someone stabs, beats, strangles, or bludgeons someone he is a "killer". Someone attacks someone with a knife it is "assault with a deadly weapon". Someone attacks someone with a gun it is a "deadly assault weapon." Focus on the violence, not the gun.

If they were willing to do some of these, I might consider there to be some room to compromise on background checks, because then it would be an actual compromise.

With the exception of #1 and #5, none of what you offer even remotely addresses the issue of gun-related crime...

What would have happened if the NRA had offered a plan from the very beginning?

The NRA would be guilty of the same emotional finger pointing as the Liberals.

The NRA needed to get out in front on this one.

The NRA is made up of individuals. What, may I ask, are you doing to in your words "to get out in front on this one?"

OptimusPrime

February 5, 2013, 07:44 PM

Kynoch, I like the thought. Of course the items could be adjusted and re-phrased, but I think it's a great foundation. Maybe it's more or fewer, but having a clear platform is a good idea. No compromising and include language that calls out 2A pretty clearly too.
Suggestion: call it "The NRA's 6-shooter Bullet Points."

Skribs

February 5, 2013, 07:56 PM

Kynoch, you are correct. It does not address the problem of gun-related crime, because gun-related crime (misnomer, by-the-way) would not be affected by repealing those statutes. It addresses the problem of gun rights.

The problem isn't that the NRA didn't offer a plan. They did offer one. It just wasn't the most logical option available, and now they're taking flack for it. If they would have made a suggestion which is much more economical (providing training to arm teachers and removing GFZs) they would have had a much better response from us and the fence-sitters. They went to the extreme, however, and suggestion something that isn't really logistically possible, especially with more and more budget cuts.

jwh336

February 5, 2013, 07:58 PM

Sorry for not sticking to the question.

"What would have happened if the NRA had offered a plan from the very beginning?"

Nothing. The anti-gun people don't want a solution unless it is the manner in which guns are disposed of. So the advice from the NRA would have carried as much weight as it does now.

Do you *really* want the Fed to be able to decide what "mental health" is?

Courts already adjudicate who is insane. There would be no change there.

The change comes in addressing how to treat such people and to ensure the prohibition of owning firearms (via adjudication) makes it into the NICS.

Kynoch

February 5, 2013, 08:06 PM

Kynoch, I like the thought. Of course the items could be adjusted and re-phrased, but I think it's a great foundation. Maybe it's more or fewer, but having a clear platform is a good idea. No compromising and include language that calls out 2A pretty clearly too.
Suggestion: call it "The NRA's 6-shooter Bullet Points."

Thanks for the comments and you are absolutely correct -- the outline I offered is not set in stone. It's a construct offered to invoke discussion.

I would give it a very "catchy" name and I would continue to refer to it.

The key would be to offer something that couldn't be objected to by anyone. Something that would overwhelm the chants for gun control. And most of all, something that might actually help to reduce gun-related crime.

I appreciate that you "get it" and that you're not negative in your response. Thanks.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 12:19 AM

Kynoch, you are correct. It does not address the problem of gun-related crime, because gun-related crime (misnomer, by-the-way) would not be affected by repealing those statutes. It addresses the problem of gun rights.

The problem isn't that the NRA didn't offer a plan. They did offer one. It just wasn't the most logical option available, and now they're taking flack for it. If they would have made a suggestion which is much more economical (providing training to arm teachers and removing GFZs) they would have had a much better response from us and the fence-sitters. They went to the extreme, however, and suggestion something that isn't really logistically possible, especially with more and more budget cuts.

No they did not. The offered the "school shield" project. That was it.

mnrivrat

February 6, 2013, 08:51 AM

Why is it that the NRA should get involved at all with solving what criminal activity goes on ?

Why should the NRA have to come up with solutions to criminal activity simply because they are advocates of 2nd amendment rights, and the shooting sports ?

The gun grabbers want to disarm us period. Doesn't make much difference what we say, or what the truth is .

hso

February 6, 2013, 08:59 AM

That's pretty good.

As hindsight is always 20-20 I'm sure the NRA wishes it had done some things differently.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 6, 2013, 09:22 AM

No they did not. The offered the "school shield" project. That was it.

Yes, why should they have offered more? Which one of your proposals would have stopped a mentally ill man from murdering his mother and stealing her guns? The best way to stop an active shooter is to have a good guy with a gun already there when it happens. The NRA plan was geared towards actually solving the problem presented.

Had the NRA offered the list you suggest, that would immediately be the baseline from which political negotiations started - at a minimum, the gun control people would demand everything they liked on that list (although given how well worded the list is, there isn't much they could twist on it and a lot they would not like) AND they would have offered all the same legislation you see now - because all of that legislation was just sitting around waiting for a tragedy so they could sell it - and because none of that legislation will do the slightest thing to prevent another tragedy, when that next tragedy happens, they will have a new list of demands from lawful gun owners, even if they get everything on their current wish list.

As far as the NRA, they are still more popular than Congress and the President with Americans; maybe not so much with the media; but I am doubtful that this would change even if the NRA capitulated.

Akita1

February 6, 2013, 09:47 AM

Yes, why should they have offered more? Which one of your proposals would have stopped a mentally ill man from murdering his mother and stealing her guns? The best way to stop an active shooter is to have a good guy with a gun already there when it happens. The NRA plan was geared towards actually solving the problem presented.

Had the NRA offered the list you suggest, that would immediately be the baseline from which political negotiations started - at a minimum, the gun control people would demand everything they liked on that list (although given how well worded the list is, there isn't much they could twist on it and a lot they would not like) AND they would have offered all the same legislation you see now - because all of that legislation was just sitting around waiting for a tragedy so they could sell it - and because none of that legislation will do the slightest thing to prevent another tragedy, when that next tragedy happens, they will have a new list of demands from lawful gun owners, even if they get everything on their current wish list.

As far as the NRA, they are still more popular than Congress and the President with Americans; maybe not so much with the media; but I am doubtful that this would change even if the NRA capitulated.
+1 BR; I (almost) wish NRA had not said anything beyond a shocked/saddened/prayers statement, because parading WLP out hasn't exactly been a stellar strategy. While WE get the facts and understand the statistics, the antis do the Rorschach test every time - having a reasoned logical debate with them is mostly impossible. Most of them are simply not interested in facts - they already had both barrels of legislation loaded and Sandy Hook was their excuse because it was babies lying on the floor and an AR in the perp's hands (ignore the fact that V Tech was pistols and more dead).

And Congress? Ugh....

FROGO207

February 6, 2013, 10:34 AM

We could try fighting fire with fire and use emotion to further our cause. That unfortunately would show the firearms owner in the same light as the ANTI in most peoples minds however. The way to prevail is to stay the course in a slow, steady, TRUTHFUL way. I often council my friends that their divorced partner that is poisoning their children against them will ultimately be shown to be the idiot for spouting their emotional views when the children grow up enough to face the reality of the situation as individualistic thinking young adults. As said before time is on our side, we just have to prevent more incidents in the vein of what happened in the NY state political (circus) arena. Couple that with a media that is out of control today. They made far far too much out of things like Y2K and 12-12-12 for even the most gullible individual to actually believe them most days-----but most people (sheeple) generally believe what the main stream media spout off as truth these days sadly. And the media outlets are choosing that demonizing guns and all firearms owners with their stale rhetoric gives them power. I am betting most normal citizens will eventually see the truth in the long run, but unfortunately not before irreparable damage has been done to the 2A I am afraid.:uhoh:

Remember that old saying:
Keeping your mouth shut will have some thinking you are stupid but opening it may well prove them right.

I agree sometimes it is best not to try to counter emotion in an expedient manner. And as always YMMV.:)

TNBilly

February 6, 2013, 11:15 AM

Sadly you both are missing my primary question.

What would have happened if the NRA had offered a plan from the very beginning? The discussion I was hoping for was not an analysis of what I offered but an analysis of what would have happened if the NRA has offered a plan from the very beginning?

As it is now when someone asks "so, the NRA doesn't support any measure to reduce gun-violence?" it's often met with a grimace and mumbling from WLP.

The NRA needed to get out in front on this one.
Sorry...... as much as I would LIKE to get alongside the NRA, and yes I am a member, they do not speak for me and have not for about the last 30 years! LaPierre has waffled in his opinion over the last 20 years, especially concerning implementation and justification of NICS. The board for great part sound pretty much like the antis in my opinion. I'll continue to say my own piece and not rely on the NRA. They sold us down the river in the 90's and likely will do so again! One thing that speaks much louder than all the useless "compromise" pandering I see in the forums is the Waking up and sales in the last month of much much more than your average target enthusiast or the like. You can "talk" all ya want but you're not going to talk around the sales reality on the ground!

tomrkba

February 6, 2013, 11:33 AM

I do not agree that mental health needs to be fixed with laws.

gossamer

February 6, 2013, 11:48 AM

First this one:

9.) Work with gov't and the media to establish firm guidelines so any future gun-related criminals are not lionized in the press.

"Firm guidelines" for Media established with the hand of the Government is called censorship. No.

I give as much stock to the NRA's position on mental health as I do the American Psychiatric Association's position on self defense. Zilch.
The NRA is not a mental health organization, the leadership knows jack squat about mental health and should stay out of it.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 11:52 AM

Yes, why should they have offered more? Which one of your proposals would have stopped a mentally ill man from murdering his mother and stealing her guns? The best way to stop an active shooter is to have a good guy with a gun already there when it happens. The NRA plan was geared towards actually solving the problem presented.

Had the NRA offered the list you suggest, that would immediately be the baseline from which political negotiations started - at a minimum, the gun control people would demand everything they liked on that list (although given how well worded the list is, there isn't much they could twist on it and a lot they would not like) AND they would have offered all the same legislation you see now - because all of that legislation was just sitting around waiting for a tragedy so they could sell it - and because none of that legislation will do the slightest thing to prevent another tragedy, when that next tragedy happens, they will have a new list of demands from lawful gun owners, even if they get everything on their current wish list.

As far as the NRA, they are still more popular than Congress and the President with Americans; maybe not so much with the media; but I am doubtful that this would change even if the NRA capitulated.

They should have offered as much as possible -- all that made sense to counter the "let's ban guns" mantra.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 11:55 AM

We could try fighting fire with fire and use emotion to further our cause. That unfortunately would show the firearms owner in the same light as the ANTI in most peoples minds however. The way to prevail is to stay the course in a slow, steady, TRUTHFUL way. I often council my friends that their divorced partner that is poisoning their children against them will ultimately be shown to be the idiot for spouting their emotional views when the children grow up enough to face the reality of the situation as individualistic thinking young adults. As said before time is on our side, we just have to prevent more incidents in the vein of what happened in the NY state political (circus) arena. Couple that with a media that is out of control today. They made far far too much out of things like Y2K and 12-12-12 for even the most gullible individual to actually believe them most days-----but most people (sheeple) generally believe what the main stream media spout off as truth these days sadly. And the media outlets are choosing that demonizing guns and all firearms owners with their stale rhetoric gives them power. I am betting most normal citizens will eventually see the truth in the long run, but unfortunately not before irreparable damage has been done to the 2A I am afraid.:uhoh:

Remember that old saying:
Keeping your mouth shut will have some thinking you are stupid but opening it may well prove them right.

I agree sometimes it is best not to try to counter emotion in an expedient manner. And as always YMMV.:)

Who said anything about emotion? Laying out a proposed outline would have been one helluva lot better than WLP grimmacing followed by him being tongue-tied.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 11:59 AM

It's sad that most didn't comprehend my posting...

I didn't seek critique about the outline I posted. It's nothing more than a construct to aid discussion. I thought my comment "(feel free to add, subtract or change items as you wish)" would make that clear.

I was curious about what would have happened had the NRA laid-out a honest-to-goodness outline of what it felt needed to happen AND THEN continue to reference that outline every time the antis made a comment like "so you feel there is nothing we can do about gun-related violence?"

Maybe this thread is a good example of why the NRA is not doing a better job right now?

gossamer

February 6, 2013, 12:08 PM

I didn't seek critique about the outline I posted. It's nothing more than a construct to aid discussion. I thought my comment "(feel free to add, subtract or change items as you wish)" would make that clear.

Good point. Since you put it that way, I would subtract No's 1 & 9.

Everything else seems to be rational.

Grey_Mana

February 6, 2013, 12:12 PM

What is the rationale for making the NICS semi-confidential? If the information is FOIA-able, and belongs to the public, then put it on a public website. Let anybody check anybody for any reason, without needing to submit information to the government. Let everybody see their records without needing to submit to the appeals process.

There is no integral need to tell the FBI or BATF that somebody is trying to buy a gun, in order for the FBI to share their database. Giving the government an opportunity to retain information wasn't the stated intent of NICS. The only reason to give FBI information should be to get their help if there is confusion about who is who in the database.

Fishbed77

February 6, 2013, 12:21 PM

With the exception of #1 and #5, none of what you offer even remotely addresses the issue of gun-related crime...

Almost none of the proposals offered by politicians in recent weeks even remotely address the issues of gun-related crime.

What Skribs is proposing makes perfect sense, because he if offering actual points of compromise.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 12:21 PM

Good point. Since you put it that way, I would subtract No's 1 & 9.

Everything else seems to be rational.

#1 is by far the most important point of them all. It's also the most difficult to define, the most difficult to implement, the most expensive, etc. Any plan that does not address mental health is a loser.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 12:24 PM

Almost none of the proposals offered by politicians in recent weeks even remotely address the issues of gun-related crime.

What Skribs is proposing makes perfect sense, because he if offering actual points of compromise.

Absolutely not.

If Skribs' point about opening the NFA registry was actually offered by the NRA, the entire game would be over. 90%+ of the US would conclude the NRA is a whack-job organization. The other side would be flooded by a mandate of support to slam though everything on their list.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 6, 2013, 04:14 PM

My point is that your appear to be assuming the nation is having a rational conversation about gun control. We are not having that on the national scale. Instead we are seeing a concerted propaganda effort to push more gun restrictions on law-abiding gun owners in an effort to reduce the number of gun owners over time through increased red tape and reduce their political power.

In that environment, proposing actual solutions is a moot point because your opponents do not care about actual solutions. They have already acknowledged these proposals will not reduce crime or stop active shooters. None of the proposals would have stopped Newtown and the only proposal supported by the NRA (increased money to better report mental health to NICS) is the only thing that might have made a difference in Aurora, Giffords, and VA Tech.

If you live in California and don't understand it by now, I don't know how to explain it more clearly. Offering reasonable solutions won't change the response because your opponents don't want solutions and are not reasonable. They think that getting rid of guns is the only way to go and they aren't interested in solutions that don't advance that goal.

Several of your points are useful, not because they provide a solution or would change the dialogue; but because they would force the antis to acknowledge their hypocrisy by opposing non-controversial things like gun safety and actually preventing future tragedies. However, unless you can get that through the incredibly hostile media filter, pointing out the hypocrisy isn't all that useful. Look at the recent Senate hearings - if you watched that on CNN or MSNBC, you'd never see the great pro-2A testimony. You'd see a highlight reel of Wayne LaPierre's biggest flubs, every piece of anti-gun testimony, and then a cut to montages of past shootings while Dave Kopel testifies.

So when you ask "What would the response be?", I say "It would be the same because the other side isn't interested in possible solutions that don't further a reduction in legal gun ownership."

gossamer

February 6, 2013, 05:10 PM

#1 is by far the most important point of them all. It's also the most difficult to define, the most difficult to implement, the most expensive, etc. Any plan that does not address mental health is a loser.
That may be true, but the NRA has not business dealing with it. They have no expertise in mental health. Period.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 06:46 PM

That may be true, but the NRA has not business dealing with it. They have no expertise in mental health. Period.

Incorrect, "period."

The topic is stopping/reducing gun-related violence -- particularly gun-related massacres. Being violently whacko is the #1 reason these things happen. That means it belongs at the top of any outline -- prepared by the NRA or anyone else, "period."

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 06:48 PM

My point is that your appear to be assuming the nation is having a rational conversation about gun control. We are not having that on the national scale. Instead we are seeing a concerted propaganda effort to push more gun restrictions on law-abiding gun owners in an effort to reduce the number of gun owners over time through increased red tape and reduce their political power.

In that environment, proposing actual solutions is a moot point because your opponents do not care about actual solutions. They have already acknowledged these proposals will not reduce crime or stop active shooters. None of the proposals would have stopped Newtown and the only proposal supported by the NRA (increased money to better report mental health to NICS) is the only thing that might have made a difference in Aurora, Giffords, and VA Tech.

If you live in California and don't understand it by now, I don't know how to explain it more clearly. Offering reasonable solutions won't change the response because your opponents don't want solutions and are not reasonable. They think that getting rid of guns is the only way to go and they aren't interested in solutions that don't advance that goal.

Several of your points are useful, not because they provide a solution or would change the dialogue; but because they would force the antis to acknowledge their hypocrisy by opposing non-controversial things like gun safety and actually preventing future tragedies. However, unless you can get that through the incredibly hostile media filter, pointing out the hypocrisy isn't all that useful. Look at the recent Senate hearings - if you watched that on CNN or MSNBC, you'd never see the great pro-2A testimony. You'd see a highlight reel of Wayne LaPierre's biggest flubs, every piece of anti-gun testimony, and then a cut to montages of past shootings while Dave Kopel testifies.

So when you ask "What would the response be?", I say "It would be the same because the other side isn't interested in possible solutions that don't further a reduction in legal gun ownership."

I don't care how rational or irrational the debate may be, pushing their own plan from the very outset would be serving NRA members far better than WLP's grimmaces and tongue-twisted retorts.

It's probably true that WLP couldn't sell a plan if his life depended upon it. There are other people that can and perhaps one of them should be doing the job he is currently paid to do.

JRH6856

February 6, 2013, 07:15 PM

Arming teachers and not designating schools as gun free zones will not fly. Before it can, a substantially large majority of the general public must believe that it is OK for children to be around guns and that just is not the case right now. Adults, maybe but children? :what: HORRORS!!! :eek:

Over the past 50 years, there has been a steady reeducation program—a propaganda program—not blatant, but subtly reinforcing the idea that guns must, must be kept away from children. "Children are too curious." "Children are too irresponsible." "Children don't know it isn't a toy." All of this is so ingrained that for a great many people, it is just a given. They don't stop to question it and can only be led to do so with great difficulty. Children can be taught the proper respect for firearms, but before that can happen, the parents fears have to be overcome and that means undoing 50 years of programming. But it is necessary if there is to be any hope of parents feeling their children are safe around guns.

J-Bar

February 6, 2013, 07:56 PM

I think the NRA has failed miserably in providing the general public with a true image of itself.

I wish there had been some NRA sponsored ads during the Super Bowl; about five seconds long each:

...A photo of a respected physician and his family--"NRA Members", followed by a mug shot of a felon--"Not An NRA Member".

...then another photo of a respected community member, followed by a mugshot of a felon, same captions.

Do twenty or thirty different ones. Fox News would probably air some. There would be enough liberal howling to get them discussed on the liberal media as fallout.

The general public sees Mr. LaPierre as the "gun lobby". The NRA is missing a bet by not publicizing all of Wayne's friends. The liberals are the weirdos, not NRA members. We are the solid citizens. But who knew?

And I am a Patron Life Member and I sent the NRA a check the same day Mr. LaPierre made his televised response to the Newtown tragedy.

JRH6856

February 6, 2013, 08:13 PM

I think the NRA has failed miserably in providing the general public with a true image of itself.

I think the NRA has failed miserably in providing the membership with a true image of itself. Based on the mailings and emails I receive and have received for more years than I can count, the NRA is a lobbying organization.

90% of my NRA initiated contact is either asking for money or is from the NRA-ILA. Oh, and life insurance offers. Can't forget those.

I support the NRA (I am a life member) because it supports the 2A, but it would be nice to know what else it is doing without having to dig for it.

avs11054

February 6, 2013, 08:29 PM

DiFi and Co., dont want a plan to reduce gun violence. They want a plan to reduce guns. No logical plan offered would have changed anything.

EBK

February 6, 2013, 08:30 PM

"4.) Prosecute those who legitimately fail (felons, insane, etc.) the NICS during the process of attempting to purchase a firearm."

So if I put the wrong adress (used old adress out of habit after I moved) or forget my apt # and get denied would I be prosecuted for that? I have been denied before for those reasons.

Or is it only if I get denied for criminal history or sanity reasons?

J-Bar

February 6, 2013, 08:48 PM

"the NRA is a lobbying organization."

Of course they are a lobbying organization. I want them to be a lobbying organization. That's how the game is played.

My complaint is they are doing a lousy job of showing who they represent.

The antis have done a terrific job of painting gun owners and NRA members as lunatics. The NRA has not successfully countered that image.

Woe to us.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 6, 2013, 09:08 PM

I don't care how rational or irrational the debate may be, pushing their own plan from the very outset would be serving NRA members far better than WLP's grimmaces and tongue-twisted retorts.

The NRA did push their own plan from the very beginning, as you noted, they pushed an immediate armed response. This is basically the most effective way to stop an active shooter. So effective in fact, that it was adopted by the Administration, even though the same idea was roundly ridiculed in the media filtering the message.

Yet here we are sitting on a gun board discussing how inadequate the NRA response was? The NRA gave the A+ answer for responding to active shooters - the same answer pushed by all of law enforcement - get a good guy with a gun in there ASAP and confront the shooter. Yet that A+ answer was so effectively filtered by the media, that even after the President adopted it wholesale as part of his own agenda, we are sitting on a gun board complaining about how the NRA response was inadequate and trying to think of better ways to give something to someone who says they want to take all of our guns and will do so when they have the votes?

The only way the NRA would get a positive response to their plan would be to agree to adopt measures that would serve to make it more difficult for the average joe to legally own firearms - which would kind of defeat the purpose of the NRA.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 11:25 PM

Arming teachers and not designating schools as gun free zones will not fly. Before it can, a substantially large majority of the general public must believe that it is OK for children to be around guns and that just is not the case right now. Adults, maybe but children? HORRORS!!!

Over the past 50 years, there has been a steady reeducation program—a propaganda program—not blatant, but subtly reinforcing the idea that guns must, must be kept away from children. "Children are too curious." "Children are too irresponsible." "Children don't know it isn't a toy." All of this is so ingrained that for a great many people, it is just a given. They don't stop to question it and can only be led to do so with great difficulty. Children can be taught the proper respect for firearms, but before that can happen, the parents fears have to be overcome and that means undoing 50 years of programming. But it is necessary if there is to be any hope of parents feeling their children are safe around guns.

You simply don't know that. I would suggest that more and more people realize that the School Gun Control Act of 1990 is not merely worthless, it's dangerous.

As far as teachers/administrators CCWing, it would be suicide right now to push that on a national level right now. That's sad too because it might well make a difference.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 11:28 PM

The NRA did push their own plan from the very beginning, as you noted, they pushed an immediate armed response. This is basically the most effective way to stop an active shooter. So effective in fact, that it was adopted by the Administration, even though the same idea was roundly ridiculed in the media filtering the message.

Yet here we are sitting on a gun board discussing how inadequate the NRA response was? The NRA gave the A+ answer for responding to active shooters - the same answer pushed by all of law enforcement - get a good guy with a gun in there ASAP and confront the shooter. Yet that A+ answer was so effectively filtered by the media, that even after the President adopted it wholesale as part of his own agenda, we are sitting on a gun board complaining about how the NRA response was inadequate and trying to think of better ways to give something to someone who says they want to take all of our guns and will do so when they have the votes?

The only way the NRA would get a positive response to their plan would be to agree to adopt measures that would serve to make it more difficult for the average joe to legally own firearms - which would kind of defeat the purpose of the NRA.

No, it didn't. It gave one element of an "A+ answer" and it has done a horrible job of selling that one element since its introduction.

The media is able to filter the NRA's message only because the NRA allows it to be filtered -- through incompetenence and/or naivete.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 11:31 PM

DiFi and Co., dont want a plan to reduce gun violence. They want a plan to reduce guns. No logical plan offered would have changed anything.

Untrue. This fight is ultimately going to be won based on public support. It's not a matter of selling Feinstein, it's a matter of selling the American people.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 11:33 PM

I think the NRA has failed miserably in providing the general public with a true image of itself.

I wish there had been some NRA sponsored ads during the Super Bowl; about five seconds long each:

...A photo of a respected physician and his family--"NRA Members", followed by a mug shot of a felon--"Not An NRA Member".

...then another photo of a respected community member, followed by a mugshot of a felon, same captions.

Do twenty or thirty different ones. Fox News would probably air some. There would be enough liberal howling to get them discussed on the liberal media as fallout.

The general public sees Mr. LaPierre as the "gun lobby". The NRA is missing a bet by not publicizing all of Wayne's friends. The liberals are the weirdos, not NRA members. We are the solid citizens. But who knew?

And I am a Patron Life Member and I sent the NRA a check the same day Mr. LaPierre made his televised response to the Newtown tragedy.

You're right. I don't think he always communicates well and I think he carries a great deal of baggage. He might be a tremendous planner and lobbiest but he's not a great spokesman.

Kynoch

February 6, 2013, 11:34 PM

"the NRA is a lobbying organization."

Of course they are a lobbying organization. I want them to be a lobbying organization. That's how the game is played.

My complaint is they are doing a lousy job of showing who they represent.

The antis have done a terrific job of painting gun owners and NRA members as lunatics. The NRA has not successfully countered that image.

Woe to us.
Quite true...

And I think the pro-gun camp has come to expect getting beat-up in this manner -- as if it cannot be helped and that's just silly.

Sgt_R

February 6, 2013, 11:34 PM

Tagged

Bartholomew Roberts

February 6, 2013, 11:41 PM

No, it didn't. It gave one element of an "A+ answer" and it has done a horrible job of selling that one element since its introduction.

They got the former Democratic Senator from Chicago and Chairman of the Board of the Joyce Foundation to adopt their idea in his list of executive actions (Items 12 & 18) and you feel they have done a horrible job of selling that element? The President of the United States adopted their idea while all of his allies and his base were lambasting it. If that is horrible, then what do you consider adequate or good?

JRH6856

February 7, 2013, 12:22 AM

You simply don't know that. I would suggest that more and more people realize that the School Gun Control Act of 1990 is not merely worthless, it's dangerous.

And you simply don't know that. I know what I have learned from talking and corresponding with people acroos the country, and that is what I wrote. If it is true that more and more people are realizing gun free zones are a bad idea, it is equally true that more and more people believe they are a good idea.

The fact is, for the majority of Americans, firearms are not an important part of their lives if they have any part at all. Polls suggest there are 55 million households with guns representing about 80 million individual gun owners. But these are "owners" because when asked if they own a gun, they answered yes. Some of them have never fired the gun they own because it was their fathers, or their grandfathers. They inherited it and it has been in the closet or the attic ever since. Some of them used to hunt, or used to shoot regularly, but that was when they were younger or before they had kids. Life got too busy and with kids in the house, they keep the guns locked up and out of sight and haven't touched them in years. But they are not anti0gun, they just aren't gun enthusiasts or active shooters. When they think about protecting their families or themselves, from "gun violence", they don't think about using a gun to stop the bad guy with the gun, they think about stopping the bad guy from having a gun.

But a lot of these households have members that have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, where they learned to depend on a weapon for personal defense. Many of these returning vets still feel the need for a weapon for personal defense so the demographic is changing. The number of enthusiasits is increasing, but are still a minority.

Alaska444

February 7, 2013, 12:49 AM

Incorrect, "period."

The topic is stopping/reducing gun-related violence -- particularly gun-related massacres. Being violently whacko is the #1 reason these things happen. That means it belongs at the top of any outline -- prepared by the NRA or anyone else, "period."
Sorry, but the mental health folks would tell you that there is no good predictive model to foretell who will or won't commit violent acts.

Further, violent acts by mentally ill people compromises only a small fraction of the violent acts committed in America. Not understanding why focussing on mental health as a solution to stop mass shootings is a failed option will only lead to further recriminations against the gun lobby.

Truthfully, you cannot stop these events without focus on security. That was and is the message of the NRA. Getting rid of gun free zones and capitalizing security measures as the only practical solutions. The NRA addressed both of these issues in their press conference.

Kynoch

February 7, 2013, 03:39 AM

Sorry, but the mental health folks would tell you that there is no good predictive model to foretell who will or won't commit violent acts.

You're simply wrong about that. In years past such people were institutionalized after the were adjudicated as being criminally insane. Now they are drugged and too often they live on the streets and too often forget to take their meds.

Try reading this sort, real world essay on the matter: I am Adam Lanza's mother (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-my-son-threatens-to-kill-me-ive-tried-everything-everything-is-not-enough-667485/)

Further, violent acts by mentally ill people compromises only a small fraction of the violent acts committed in America. Not understanding why focussing on mental health as a solution to stop mass shootings is a failed option will only lead to further recriminations against the gun lobby.

Mass shootings have been almost universally committed by whack-jobs. That's indisputable.

Truthfully, you cannot stop these events without focus on security. That was and is the message of the NRA. Getting rid of gun free zones and capitalizing security measures as the only practical solutions. The NRA addressed both of these issues in their press conference.

No, they aren't the "only practical solutions." Many things combine to form at best a partial solution.

Kynoch

February 7, 2013, 03:43 AM

And you simply don't know that. I know what I have learned from talking and corresponding with people acroos the country, and that is what I wrote. If it is true that more and more people are realizing gun free zones are a bad idea, it is equally true that more and more people believe they are a good idea...

Sure I do, by its very definition...

Alaska444

February 7, 2013, 03:53 AM

You're simply wrong about that. In years past such people were institutionalized after the were adjudicated as being criminally insane. Now they are drugged and too often they live on the streets and too often forget to take their meds.

Try reading this sort, real world essay on the matter: I am Adam Lanza's mother (http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/opinion/perspectives/i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-my-son-threatens-to-kill-me-ive-tried-everything-everything-is-not-enough-667485/)

Mass shootings have been almost universally committed by whack-jobs. That's indisputable.

No, they aren't the "only practical solutions." Many things combine to form at best a partial solution.
You can disagree with me which is fine, but the evidence is that mental health identification of violent folks is lacking. Here is an article summarizing some of this evidence. If you would like, I will find some more articles on this issue.

There is indeed a profile of young, white, upper middle class males with mental issues that have caused most of these mass shootings. Yes, that is indeed true. What is also true is that there are a LOT of kids with that description. Sorting out which will or won't commit such an act is a different issue. Perhaps we should just lock up all young, white, upper middle class males with mental issues.

One researcher disputes the common belief that these kids are all seriously mentally ill.

Lastly, eliminating gun free zones is the single best action we have that would greatly reduce mass school shootings. Allowing more concealed carry in these areas will also go a long way since one of the traits of many of these mass murderers is committing suicide once they encounter any armed resistance. Lastly, the NRA is correct to focus on school security but I don't believe it should in any manner be conducted at the Federal level.

If you don't believe this works, just research the solution in Israel, Peru and the Philippines. America is not likely to ever consider those things that work since it appears we have lost our national common sense long ago. Mas Ayoob noted such in a recent article he wrote on what we should do to avert mass school shootings here in the US.

You can disagree with me which is fine, but the evidence is that mental health identification of violent folks is lacking. Here is an article summarizing some of this evidence. If you would like, I will find some more articles on this issue.

There is indeed a profile of young, white, upper middle class males with mental issues that have caused most of these mass shootings. Yes, that is indeed true. What is also true is that there are a LOT of kids with that description. Sorting out which will or won't commit such an act is a different issue. Perhaps we should just lock up all young, white, upper middle class males with mental issues.

One researcher disputes the common belief that these kids are all seriously mentally ill.

Extremely difficult and ongoing but it needs to begin. Apathy is the killer on this one.

Lastly, eliminating gun free zones is the single best action we have that would greatly reduce mass school shootings. Allowing more concealed carry in these areas will also go a long way since one of the traits of many of these mass murderers is committing suicide once they encounter any armed resistance. Lastly, the NRA is correct to focus on school security but I don't believe it should in any manner be conducted at the Federal level.

I agree about the GFZ and the CCW. I didn't include CCW because it simply wouldn't sell right now. **If** any gun controls exist, I would much prefer they be uniform at the federal level.

If you don't believe this works, just research the solution in Israel, Peru and the Philippines. America is not likely to ever consider those things that work since it appears we have lost our national common sense long ago. Mas Ayoob noted such in a recent article he wrote on what we should do to avert mass school shootings here in the US.

Extremely difficult and ongoing but it needs to begin. Apathy is the killer on this one.

I agree about the GFZ and the CCW. I didn't include CCW because it simply wouldn't sell right now. **If** any gun controls exist, I would much prefer they be uniform at the federal level.

There is still plenty we can do. I'm not about to give up on the USA...
As a primary care physician for nearly 20 years before retiring due to renal disease, I had many patients who fit the profile of a "mass" murderer: young, white, socially isolated male in their 20's. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, none of them in all those years committed a mass murder.

Perhaps we are missing the message in just as dramatic a fashion as the anti's are by blaming these examples all on mental illness. Certainly, the Aurora man is indeed in that category as well as the Arizona shooter. But that is not true of many of these creeps. Social isolation and poor communication skills are not reasonable reasons to lock up anyone and in fact the law reflects that. If we focus on mental health and ignore the issue of violence in our society in general, we miss the largest contributor to not only mass killings but all murders in this nation.

The anti's are likewise focussing on the gun instead of the underlying problem of violence in this nation. That may be the one common factor we have on both sides of the issue. One form of violence in this nation is the bullying problem which according to many accounts is becoming epidemic. Bullying is one common factor of many of these mass murderers.

In many ways, the violence we tolerate in our daily lives on TV, video games is directly mirrored by what is happening in our streets every day. If we are going to have areas of agreement with the anti's, in reality, the best starting ground is with the issue of violence.

I have my own solution to the issue, but it seems that this nation kicked God out of our schools over 50 years ago. What is there that can and has restrained violence in the past is now universally rejected by both anti's and pro-gun folks alike. This is a gun forum, so I can't perseverate on the issue, but the reason for the failure of gun control in England is because it does nothing to stem the underlying violence. England is now once again looking at controlling knives and other objects and once again missing the point.

We should likewise not miss the point as well. Violence is the problem, focussing aggressively on mental health approaches by the admission of mental health professionals will not prevent these events.

if you have sources that state differently, please feel free to provide them so we can evaluate them for their veracity.

Kynoch

February 7, 2013, 06:13 PM

As a primary care physician for nearly 20 years before retiring due to renal disease, I had many patients who fit the profile of a "mass" murderer: young, white, socially isolated male in their 20's. Yet, to the best of my knowledge, none of them in all those years committed a mass murder.

Perhaps we are missing the message in just as dramatic a fashion as the anti's are by blaming these examples all on mental illness. Certainly, the Aurora man is indeed in that category as well as the Arizona shooter. But that is not true of many of these creeps. Social isolation and poor communication skills are not reasonable reasons to lock up anyone and in fact the law reflects that. If we focus on mental health and ignore the issue of violence in our society in general, we miss the largest contributor to not only mass killings but all murders in this nation.

The anti's are likewise focussing on the gun instead of the underlying problem of violence in this nation. That may be the one common factor we have on both sides of the issue. One form of violence in this nation is the bullying problem which according to many accounts is becoming epidemic. Bullying is one common factor of many of these mass murderers.

In many ways, the violence we tolerate in our daily lives on TV, video games is directly mirrored by what is happening in our streets every day. If we are going to have areas of agreement with the anti's, in reality, the best starting ground is with the issue of violence.

I have my own solution to the issue, but it seems that this nation kicked God out of our schools over 50 years ago. What is there that can and has restrained violence in the past is now universally rejected by both anti's and pro-gun folks alike. This is a gun forum, so I can't perseverate on the issue, but the reason for the failure of gun control in England is because it does nothing to stem the underlying violence. England is now once again looking at controlling knives and other objects and once again missing the point.

We should likewise not miss the point as well. Violence is the problem, focussing aggressively on mental health approaches by the admission of mental health professionals will not prevent these events.

if you have sources that state differently, please feel free to provide them so we can evaluate them for their veracity.

I strongly agree that the focus cannot only be on mental health. If that would happen it would be a big mistake akin to focusing only on gun control. Any "solution" will be multi-faceted and it will obviously not be absolute.

I also strongly agree that the underlying cause for the entire mess that is today's septic society is the systematic elimination of God from our day-to-day lives by the forces of militant secularism. No question in my mind whatsoever.

But society has to start somewhere. I believe the NRA would have been doing the country a big favor by offering a well thought-out outline. I think it would also have been the best weapon to use against the current push for worthless and ultimately dangerous gun control.

Alaska444

February 7, 2013, 06:28 PM

I strongly agree that the focus cannot only be on mental health. If that would happen it would be a big mistake akin to focusing only on gun control. Any "solution" will be multi-faceted and it will obviously not be absolute.

I also strongly agree that the underlying cause for the entire mess that is today's septic society is the systematic elimination of God from our day-to-day lives by the forces of militant secularism. No question in my mind whatsoever.

But society has to start somewhere. I believe the NRA would have been doing the country a big favor by offering a well thought-out outline. I think it would also have been the best weapon to use against the current push for worthless and ultimately dangerous gun control.
Glad to hear we agree more than disagree.

When the NRA statement came out, I was a bit taken back and felt that they had chosen the wrong approach. Now, I believe that they did tackle it by going after the security issue directly, but perhaps had the wrong spokesperson.

Shucks, I wish they would have put Allan Gura out there and let him discuss these issues and go over school security. I guess he isn't their spokesperson, but maybe it wasn't so much the message rather it may have been the messenger of the NRA.

radar1972

February 7, 2013, 07:13 PM

1. Does mental health need to be addressed? Yes, but as long as the liberal left has the loudest voice (and they do), mental health will not be the focus of ANY plan. Their focus is Control..... whether it be gun control or abc control or xyz control. They want to control every aspect of your life. And if you disagree, you are intolerant.

2. Does the NRA need a new spokesperson? Yes. Each time I see WLP in any public speaking setting, I cringe.

Kynoch

February 7, 2013, 10:47 PM

1. Does mental health need to be addressed? Yes, but as long as the liberal left has the loudest voice (and they do), mental health will not be the focus of ANY plan. Their focus is Control..... whether it be gun control or abc control or xyz control. They want to control every aspect of your life. And if you disagree, you are intolerant.

2. Does the NRA need a new spokesperson? Yes. Each time I see WLP in any public speaking setting, I cringe.

1.) So you say. "Mental health" needs to be a component of any real plan. Slowly but surely it's getting mentioned more and more by the politicos and the popular media.

2.) WLP should be the NRA's chief lobbiest perhaps but not its CEO. The NRA has outgrown WLP.

Kynoch

February 7, 2013, 10:50 PM

Glad to hear we agree more than disagree.

When the NRA statement came out, I was a bit taken back and felt that they had chosen the wrong approach. Now, I believe that they did tackle it by going after the security issue directly, but perhaps had the wrong spokesperson.

Shucks, I wish they would have put Allan Gura out there and let him discuss these issues and go over school security. I guess he isn't their spokesperson, but maybe it wasn't so much the message rather it may have been the messenger of the NRA.

WLP is not only a poor spokesman, he's the "face of contention." The "face of much baggage" going back to the jack-booted thug days.

Bartholomew Roberts

February 8, 2013, 09:33 PM

2.) WLP should be the NRA's chief lobbiest perhaps but not its CEO. The NRA has outgrown WLP.

I think he makes an effective CEO; but I would have someone else doing the spokesperson role.

JRH6856

February 9, 2013, 01:51 PM

1.) So you say. "Mental health" needs to be a component of any real plan. Slowly but surely it's getting mentioned more and more by the politicos and the popular media.

In making mental health a part of any plan, we must be on guard against any plan that allows the government, through the Surgeon General or the CDC or any other agency to determine what makes a person mentally healthy enough for gun ownership. Such administrative actions are wide ranging and affect people, not persons.

A person who is adjudicated mentally ill is prohibited from gun ownership, but adjudicated is a result of due process of law and this occurs on an case by case basis. We must not allow this to become an administrative decision rather than a judicial one.

Kynoch

February 10, 2013, 05:02 AM

In making mental health a part of any plan, we must be on guard against any plan that allows the government, through the Surgeon General or the CDC or any other agency to determine what makes a person mentally healthy enough for gun ownership. Such administrative actions are wide ranging and affect people, not persons.

A person who is adjudicated mentally ill is prohibited from gun ownership, but adjudicated is a result of due process of law and this occurs on an case by case basis. We must not allow this to become an administrative decision rather than a judicial one.

You are 100% right. The problem is that there are mentally ill people in this world that just sort of "float around" until all hell breaks loose. There really is no system that will trigger the beginning of the adjudication process except for committing a serious violent crime. Even then the punishment is often short and the control of said person quickly ends.

There are mentally ill people in this world that desperately need help before they (re)commit a serious violent crime. Their family and friends know it. Their schools and co-workers know it. Often they have had more than one in with the law but the focus is not on their mental health -- even when it's obvious it should be. How to change that before the next one goes off?

As an aside, your concern is probably be exemplified by returning combat vets. MANY suffer from diagnosed PTSD and other emotional ailments. It would be a terrible thing if such a diagnosis automatically kept anyone from owning a gun via an administrative process.

JRH6856

February 10, 2013, 05:17 PM

Mental health professionals (at least the objective and honest ones) continue to say that their are no reliable predictors of violent behavior other than a past history of such behavior. The only thing that can be reliably predicted about the mentally ill is that they will behave differently from what is "normal" for most people. Different is not necessarily violent, but it may be because violent behavior is generally considered abnormal.

The mentally ill need to be diagnosed and treated. While in treatment under the care of a mental health professional, their behavior can be monitored to a greater degree.

But treatment often involves medication to control and stabalize behavior and once this stability is achieved, many patients discontinue their treatment unilaterally, thinking or hoping that they are cured. This sudden cessation of medication often results in drastic changes in brain chemistry leading to extremely aberrant behavior and often violent acts. This IMO is where the greatest danger is in the treatment of the mentally ill. Once they have achieved a level of stability, they must continue to be monitored to make sure they continue to take their medication and retain that stability.

RTR_RTR

February 10, 2013, 10:54 PM

1. Does mental health need to be addressed? Yes, but as long as the liberal left has the loudest voice (and they do), mental health will not be the focus of ANY plan.

Conservatives have sure done a lot for mental health ;)

But treatment often involves medication to control and stabalize behavior and once this stability is achieved, many patients discontinue their treatment unilaterally, thinking or hoping that they are cured. This sudden cessation of medication often results in drastic changes in brain chemistry leading to extremely aberrant behavior and often violent acts. This IMO is where the greatest danger is in the treatment of the mentally ill. Once they have achieved a level of stability, they must continue to be monitored to make sure they continue to take their medication and retain that stability.

Under which conditions should we have state employees observing scheduled medication intake? Based on my interactions with patients, I would say a larger issue for treatment nonadherence is the adverse side effects of medications (particularly antipsychotics)

If you enjoyed reading about "What if the NRA has responded to the Newtown Massacre in this manner?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!